ILNews

COA rules on estate representative's banking activity

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has overturned a Lake County judge in an estate case involving a personal representative who conducted banking transactions for an elderly man before his death.

In American Savings, FSB v. Steve H. Tokarski, Successor Personal Rep. of the Estate of John Wroblewski, on Behalf of the Estate, No. 45A04-1105-CC-237, the appellate court reversed and remanded a decision by Lake Superior Judge Gerarld Svetanoff regarding the estate of John Wroblewski that dates back to 2003.

While in his late 80s, Wroblewski named Zorica Milovanovic as his power of attorney and gave her the authority to do tasks such as personal banking transactions. He executed a will naming her the personal representative of his estate, and in June 2003 she used that power of attorney to purchase cashier’s checks which she deposited into a new savings account at American Savings Bank in her name only. After Wroblewski died in 2004, his heirs contested the will and Milovanovic serving as personal representative.

Fifth Third Bank eventually became the successor personal representative, and in 2005 the Lake Superior Court declared Wroblewski’s will invalid because of Milovanovic’s undue influence. Fifth Third requested the savings account records from American Savings Bank, When Steve Tokarski became personal representative in 2007, he filed the lawsuit against American Savings Bank on grounds that the financial institution knew the money was, in fact, for John Wroblewski but allowed Milovanovic to deposit it. That was a breach of contract, the representative claimed.

The trial court found in favor of Tokarski on two counts and for American Savings Bank on a third, relying on a 2010 appellate case known as In re Estate of Rickert to determine American Savings Bank was liable. But the Court of Appeals concluded Rickert is inapplicable to this case because a contract did not arise between American Savings and Wroblewski when Milovanovic opened her savings account. Tokarski provided the trial court with no other basis for a contract between American Savings and Wroblewski and pointed to no designated evidence showing the existence of such a contract, the court found.

As a result, the appellate judges found the trial court erred by granting summary judgment for Tokarski and denying summary judgment for American Savings on the count involving the receipt of cashier’s checks to Milovanovic’s savings account.

The appellate court also found in favor of Tokarski on the issue of the bank’s applying a certificate of deposit to pay off Milovanovic’s mortgage. By deciding the trial court had erred on the first two counts, the appellate judges decided they didn’t need to address the issue of damages and set-off.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Uh oh, someone is really going to get their panti ... uh, um ... I mean get upset now: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/31/arkansas-passes-indiana-style-religious-freedom-bill

  2. Bryan, stop insulting the Swedes by comparing them to the American oligarchs. Otherwise your point is well taken.

  3. Sociologist of religion Peter Berger once said that the US is a “nation of Indians ruled by Swedes.” He meant an irreligious elite ruling a religious people, as that Sweden is the world’s least religious country and India the most religious. The idea is that American social elites tend to be much less religious than just about everyone else in the country. If this is true, it helps explain the controversy raking Indiana over Hollywood, San Fran, NYC, academia and downtown Indy hot coals. Nevermind logic, nevermind it is just the 1993 fed bill did, forget the Founders, abandon of historic dedication to religious liberty. The Swedes rule. You cannot argue with elitists. They have the power, they will use the power, sit down and shut up or feel the power. I know firsthand, having been dealt blows from the elite's high and mighty hands often as a mere religious plebe.

  4. I need helping gaining custody of my 5 and 1 year old from my alcoholic girlfriend. This should be an easy case for any lawyer to win... I've just never had the courage to take her that far. She has a record of public intox and other things. She has no job and no where to live othe than with me. But after 5 years of trying to help her with her bad habit, she has put our kids in danger by driving after drinking with them... She got detained yesterday and the police chief released my kids to me from the police station. I live paycheck to paycheck and Im under alot of stress dealing with this situation. Can anyone please help?

  5. The more a state tries to force people to associate, who don't like each other and simply want to lead separate lives, the more that state invalidates itself....... This conflict has shown clearly that the advocates of "tolerance" are themselves intolerant, the advocates of "diversity" intend to inflict themselves on an unwilling majority by force if necessary, until that people complies and relents and allows itself to be made homogenous with the politically correct preferences of the diversity-lobbies. Let's clearly understand, this is force versus force and democracy has nothing to do with this. Democracy is a false god in the first place, even if it is a valid ideal for politics, but it is becoming ever more just an empty slogan that just suckers a bunch of cattle into paying their taxes and volunteering for stupid wars.

ADVERTISEMENT